Archived: Lovat House

We found the following examples of good practice:

The service had good supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) that were readily available throughout the home.

Any people entering the building had their temperature checked and were asked to take a lateral flow COVID-19 test. People were provided with appropriate PPE before entering the home.

Staff maintained social distancing where possible and the environment promoted people to remain socially distanced.

Staff had received update training on how to keep people safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and staff and residents were regularly tested for COVID-19. The building was clean and free from clutter.

A visitor's hub had been created for people to meet with family and friends. This was accessed separately from the home to minimise the risk of infection spread.

People were well supported by staff to have telephone and internet contact with their family and friends.

Staff ensured people's welfare had been maintained and they had sufficient stimulation.

• People were supported by staff who understood the need to ensure person centred care and to respect and listen to people. The provider ensured consistency in staff support meaning people and staff were able to build positive relationships. People told us they felt well cared for by staff who treated them with respect and dignity and encouraged them to maintain relationships and keep their independence for as long as possible. People received care and support based on their individual assessment, needs and preferences. Staff liaised with other health care professionals to ensure people’s safety and meet their health needs. Where staff noted a concern they quickly involved healthcare professionals, to achieve positive outcomes for people and reduce any risks.

• The provider ensured that where needed staff received specialist training based on individual needs. Staff spoke positively about working for the provider. They felt well supported and that they could talk to management at any time, feeling confident any concerns would be acted on promptly. They felt valued and happy in their work.

Rating at last inspection: We previously inspected Lovat House on 6 June 2016 and rated the service as Good.

About the service: This service provides care and support for up to 26 older people who require residential care.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based upon the length of time since we previously visited the service.

Follow up:

We will monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider completed some recruitment checks on potential members of staff. We have made a recommendation about recruitment processes. Maintenance and checks of the property and equipment were carried out promptly. Checks on fire alarms and emergency lighting had been completed in accordance with the provider’s policy and manufacturer’s instructions.

There was a system to ensure people received their medicines safely and appropriately. The quality of the service was monitored by the registered manager through gaining regular feedback from people and their representatives and auditing of the service. The provider had plans in place to deal with emergencies that may arise.

People who use the service were able to give their views about the service. Relatives, community professionals and commissioners told us they were very happy with the service they received from Lovat House and felt that people were safe using the service. The service had systems in place to manage risks to both people and staff. Staff had good awareness of how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through procedures they understood well. Information and guidance was available for them to use if they had any concerns.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care as far as they were able and relatives/representatives told us they had been asked for their views on the service. People’s care and support needs were reviewed regularly. The registered manager ensured that up to date information was communicated promptly to staff through regular meetings.

Staff felt very well supported by the registered manager and assistant manager and said they were listened to if they raised concerns and action was taken without delay. We found an open culture in the service and staff were comfortable to approach the registered manager for advice and guidance.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to gaining consent before providing support and care. People’s right to make decisions was protected. New staff received an induction and training in core topics.

People enjoyed the activities and entertainment but some people felt that there was not much to do.

Staff appeared motivated and were proud to work in the home. They said that they felt valued and supported.

We saw that the home was in a good state or repair and in good decorative order. There was some equipment to ensure that people's needs were met.

People were encouraged to personalise their rooms and we saw that there were supplies of books for people to read. There was a television lounge and also an area where people could sit a little away from the television.

Most people were satisfied with the meals and described the food as "lovely" to "edible". We saw that food was cooked with fresh ingredients and people could have alternatives to the set menu. people said there was enough food and they could have snacks if they wanted to.

Care plans and risk assessments lacked detail and were not regularly reviewed and updated. Some documentation was incomplete and there was no evidence that people were involved in their care and support planning.

People's views were positive with responses including "could not have picked a better place" "excellent food" and "friendly and caring day staff".

One person said, 'When I call the bell staff come fairly quickly, they are pretty good'. Another person said, 'The carers are very good, they do a good job'.

We observed people were treated with respect and dignity. People told us staff treated them with respect and offered them choice in their lives. Some people told us they were not routinely offered a choice of menu unless they did not like what was offered. A person's relative told us they had been consulted about the person's meal preferences.

Staff were knowledgeable of people's specific health and personal care needs and how they wanted those needs to be met. We looked at people's care plans and supporting documents. We found peoples care plans detailed their needs, and how to meet those needs whilst minimising identified risks. However records made of people's specific personal care needs and choices were limited.

The provider had ensured staff received appropriate professional development and support to deliver care and support to the people who live in the home.

We found people and their relatives had opportunities to contribute their views about the quality of the service. The provider had systems for monitoring services provided but had not routinely ensured they were evaluated as part of their monitoring.